X Juvenile vs State of U.P and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

X Juvenile vs State of U.P and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal revision allowed; impugned orders set aside; the revisionist juvenile ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of like amount, subject to conditions: (i) no tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; (ii) undertaking through guardian not to seek adjournments on evidence dates, default actionable as abuse of bail liberty; (iii) presence through guardian before the trial court on each fixed date, absence without sufficient cause attracting action under Section 229-A IPC; Registrar (compliance) to communicate the order to the concerned Child Observation Home within a week.

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail-rejection findings/orders of the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra (04.10.2024) and the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (POCSO ACT), Agra (08.11.2024) are in consonance with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and can stand. +1 more

Court's answer

Gravity of the offence is neither a ground nor a relevant factor in considering bail of a juvenile; under Section 12 of the Act bail of a juvenile offender may be refused only on three contingencies: likelihood of association with known criminals, exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger, or release defeating the ends of justice.

Ratio / Principle

The findings recorded by the courts below are in conflict with the settled legal principle governing grant of bail to a juvenile and are erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this court; consequently the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set aside.

Key takeaways

No factor or circumstance mentioned in Section 12 of the Act exists that disentitles the applicant to bail at this stage - the applicant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence, shows no criminal proclivity or criminal psychology per the D.P.O.'s observations, has no criminal history, and has been confined for an unduly long period with the trial not concluded within the time frame contemplated by the Act; accordingly the juvenile is entitled to release on bail.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 533 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Siddharth, J.), decided 11.7.2025 [Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:111768]. Filed by a juvenile (aged about 16 years on the date of the incident, in custody since 12.07.2024) to quash (a) the order dated 04.10.2024 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra in bail application no. 55 of 2024 and (b) the order dated 08.11.2024 of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (POCSO ACT), Court no. 29, Agra in Criminal Appeal no. 258 of 2024, both arising out of Case Crime no. 185 of 2024 under section 70(2) BNS and Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Achhnera, district Agra. Held: gravity of the offence is not a ground and not a relevant factor in granting bail to a juvenile; Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 permits refusal of juvenile bail only on three contingencies (association with known criminals; moral, physical or psychological danger; defeat of the ends of justice) - following Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu v. State of U.P., 2010 (68) ACC 616 (LB). Finding no Section 12 circumstance operative (no criminal proclivity per D.P.O. observations, no criminal history, unduly long confinement, trial unconcluded) and the courts-below findings erroneous, the Court set aside the impugned orders, allowed the revision, and directed release of the juvenile on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including a guardian's undertaking against adjournment-seeking and attendance before the trial court (default actionable under Section 229-A IPC); Registrar (compliance) directed to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home within a week.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111768

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 533 of 2025

Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

As per office report dated 07.05.2025, notice has been served on opposite party no.3, but no one has turned up to opposed this revision.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge (POCSO ACT) in Act, Court No.29, Agra Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2024 (Juvenile Vs. State of U.P. and another) arising out of Case Crime no. 185 of 2024 under section 70 (2) of B.N.S. and Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Achhnera, District- Agra and order dated 04.10.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board Agra in bail application No. 55 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 185 of 2024 under section 70 (2) of B.N.S. Police and Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, Station-Achhnera, District- Agra,

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits:

(i) admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile aged about 16 years on the date of alleged incident; He is in jail since. 12.07.2024;

(ii) the applicant has been falsely implicated;

(iii) there is no specific or strong objection raised in the DPO report, other than the general and vague observations;

(iv) there is no criminal history of the applicant;

(v) there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

(vi) the revisionist has remained confined in the child observation

home for an unduly long period of time;

(vii) none of the grounds contemplated under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are available, to deny the bail to the applicant.

(ix) therefore, the impugned orders have been assailed as erroneous and contrary to law.

Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the applicant are false, and/are motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the bail rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed.

It is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice'.

The court has to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of the Act. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender. These are:-

(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court.

Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the applicant - was a juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to

criminal proclivity or criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; does not have a criminal history; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of time, in as much as the trial has not concluded within time frame contemplated by the Act. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may disentitle the applicant to grant of bail, at this stage. The father of the applicant undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the applicant, upon his release.

In view of the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are in conflict with the settled principle in law, for the purpose of grant of bail and are erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this court. Consequently, those orders cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated are hereby set aside.

In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist- X Juvenile, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home concerned within a week.

Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Abhishek

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad